Occupy Wall Street

[bbsam]

Pobre, I thank-you. You have shown me the error of my ways. We should not try to change the obvious corruption that exists between Washingtion and Wall Street. In fact, we should fawn in admiration at the artistic and admirable way in which they increase their profits. True American know-how. Disregard the "too big to fail" and accept that we are simply too small to be concerned about. De-regulate everything. Get government out of the way. That's the real problem. No more rules. After all, industry will always do what is right for the public at large. It's ok if wages stagnate and even fall. Deflation is really the worry of the small because corporate America has a world-wide market now.

And I am hardly an arsonist. "Burn the house to the ground" is a figure of speach. I am the antithesis of violent. Martin Luther King Jr. was the kind of arsonist I admire, but you are correct that there were powers to deal with him. He was after all breaking the law.

I'm really a capitalist. As a small business owner, I wouldn't have any other kind of system. But American capitalism had always adapted with it's population and now it adapts to it's bottom line. And it's a system that can only benefit the top multi-national companies at the expense of everyone else. Why should we remain silent? Why not work to change the rules? Why should the 99% allow the 1% to walk away with all the power and money? Because we owe them so much? That may well be your opinion, but it's not everyone's opinion. And yes, regardless the final outcome, I think the French Revolutionaries found their actions satisfactory. Why wouldn't they? It's not like the Aristocracy was about to improve their lives.

If anything, I am finding myself swayed more and more to the posts that Wk puts up around here. I'm not sold on Libertarianism, as I think it's far too dependent on people and corporations "doing the right thing" but I do think things are way out of wack. I understand that you disagree and am not at all inclined to silence you.

 

[PobreCarlos]

bbsam;

Sorry, but you didn't offer to "try to change the obvious corruption"...rather, you stated that "MAYBE IT IS TIME TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN"!

And, if as you say, you're "hardly an arsonist", then why are you also saying that "MAYBE IT IS TIME TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN"? Sorry, but I don't consider such terms "figures of speech". Rather, I take them as utterances of an absolute piece of human filth who, instead of being willing to CONTRIBUTE to society, is instead dedicated to the idea of "MAYBE IT IS TIME TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN" in terms of what society has created. When somebody tells me that "MAYBE IT IS TIME TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN", I can't help but take him seriously. And I would think that OTHERS would as well.

You can babble on and on all you want...but you've already defined more than adquately yourself and what you're willing to CONTRIBUTE to society. Got news for ya' bud; the "antithesis of violent" is NOT one who claims that "MAYBE IT IS TIME TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN"!

So save the bullsh_t. You've declared who you are and what you are. As I see it, you represent the TRUE "one percent"; or that even smaller percentage of those who are dedicated to the DESTRUCTION of society, rather than making a societal CONTRIBUTION. Tell ya' what...why don't you cancel your home owner policy and then burn your OWN house down first. Stay inside it while it smolders down to ground level if you like. Then come back and tell me what you've "accomplished".

 

[bbsam]

Pobre, I sense that you are a very angry person. Not filth, as you have called me, just angry. You believe as you will, be consumed by your anger if you so choose. But the system as it stands now is going to adapt or it will fail. If it makes you feel any better, corporate America has been playing the same hard ball for years when it has threatened workers with closing down shops and moving out of country. The only way to do that was with a complicit government. I think it is time to make the government less complicit and if that means we all go down in a 30 year depression, then at least we go down united. Personally, I don't think that would happen. Corpoorations still want to make money here.

 

[bbsam]

How about "Rage against the machine"? Is that a figure of speech?
What about "tear down this temple and rebuild it in three days"?

 

[PobreCarlos]

A corporate economy, a corporate society, a corporate state were not always part of the American ethos. Jefferson viewed the new representative government as curbing the excesses of "the monied interests. The pre-Civil War period reflected an established belief in the merits of a decentralized economy based on farmers and small businessmen, which culminated in the Homestead Act under President Lincoln's Administration. There was suspicion widespread during the first half of the nineteenth century about letting "legal fictions" called corporations, with limited liability to their investors, engage in production without legal constraints. Advocate Daniel Webster could thunder in court about a corporation having "no soul." Legislatures were very restrictive in their chartering of corporations.

Corporate Power In America Ralph Nader Reader

Yeah, and Jefferson was an agronomist as well; he didn't visualize a country of industrialists, or a proletariat, or even having a large service industry. To him, the idea America was a nation of small farmers, working their own land, etc. Of course, he didn't want to limit HIMSELF to such a small space and, economically, he was much more capable in the means of expressing the desires of democracy than he ever was of personally creating economic value...but why quibble?

If you would like to see "corporations" and a "corporate economy" go by the wayside (as you seem to be saying), then how do you envision most of the posters on this board making their way in this world? Think a job provider like UPS could exist WITHOUT "corporatism"? Think 300 million Americans can live subsistence-style on small farms scattered (rather tightly, one would assume!) across the breadth of our nation? Or, to be more specific, if "corporations" weren't granted a degree of "personhood", then how could they legally sign contracts? And what basis would organizations such as the Teamsters (which, when you come right down to it, is very MUCH a "corporation", albeit with even GREATER limitations to its liability) have to even exist? Who would they negotiate with?

I somewhat admire Ralph Nader. But let's face it; in terms of actually contributing to the wealth of society, and providing the economic muscle that keeps the country's citizens going, he's an absolute cipher. If we had a nation of people like him, then we'd have nation of people living in openings in the forest, gathering fruit and hustling the occasional squirrel for their sustenance.

That said, I can't understand why so many unionists today seem bound and determined to [figuratively] "cut their own throats". Witness these "workers" at Electro-Motive up in London, Ontario which I mentioned in another post, for example. Or the unionists in the Red River Valley who COULD have employment at American Crystal Sugar...but seem dead-set on the idea of greasing the path to their own destruction via counter-productive political activity. Like "bbsam", they seem determined to "burn down the house".

But when your house is "burned down", where are you going to live? Do you think YOU can construct a new one from scratch as good or better ON YOUR OWN? If not, don't you think that those who have jobs to offer should be cherished to a certain degree exactly because they DO have jobs to offer? Why do people want to cut those who make their existence possible off at the knees? Just doesn't make sense.

 

[PobreCarlos]

bbsam;

No, they're NOT....at least not in the sense that they weren't to be taken SERIOUSLY.

If you don't want to be held accountable for what you're saying, then I suggest that you don't say it in the first place. People aren't inclined to be all that flexible with their interpretations when they're threatened with violence.

 

[bbsam]

Threatening violence? No. I sense we are of different eras. How about "Throw the bums out." Could that be suitably benign for you?

 

[bbsam]

"Take them out back the woodshed"? "Give them the ol' what for"? "Some day Alice...Pow! Right in the kisser!"

 

[PobreCarlos]

bbsam;

I think you can "take it to the bank" (like that for speaking figuratively?) that there's NOTHING at this point in time that someone like you could say that would be "benign" enough for me. You've said what you've said....and, from my perspective, there's no going back on that type of thing. So what do you do? Carry a packet a matches around with you? A carton slitter? What?

 

[bbsam]

Well, Pobre. Ya got me. Better foward this on to Homeland Security. They will probably have Cheryl locked up by nightfall for having such an incendiary website. I salute you!

 

[bbsam]

Well, Pobre. Ya got me. Better foward this on to Homeland Security. They will probably have Cheryl locked up by nightfall for having such an incendiary website. I salute you!

 

[bbsam]

One thing's for sure. If you call Homeland Security, either I will be locked up as a terrorist, or you will be locked up as being simply nuts.

 

[Catatonic]

One thing's for sure. If you call Homeland Security, either I will be locked up as a terrorist, or you will be locked up as being simply nuts.

Or both and one of those could be applied to both.

 

[moreluck]

 

[bbsam]

Oh. So it's not about corporate greed and general what is perceived as unfair treatment of the American public? Thanks for the pie chart moreluck. It's all clear now.

 

[804brown]

Yeah, and Jefferson was an agronomist as well; he didn't visualize a country of industrialists, or a proletariat, or even having a large service industry. To him, the idea America was a nation of small farmers, working their own land, etc. Of course, he didn't want to limit HIMSELF to such a small space and, economically, he was much more capable in the means of expressing the desires of democracy than he ever was of personally creating economic value...but why quibble?

If you would like to see "corporations" and a "corporate economy" go by the wayside (as you seem to be saying), then how do you envision most of the posters on this board making their way in this world? Think a job provider like UPS could exist WITHOUT "corporatism"? Think 300 million Americans can live subsistence-style on small farms scattered (rather tightly, one would assume!) across the breadth of our nation? Or, to be more specific, if "corporations" weren't granted a degree of "personhood", then how could they legally sign contracts? And what basis would organizations such as the Teamsters (which, when you come right down to it, is very MUCH a "corporation", albeit with even GREATER limitations to its liability) have to even exist? Who would they negotiate with?

I somewhat admire Ralph Nader. But let's face it; in terms of actually contributing to the wealth of society, and providing the economic muscle that keeps the country's citizens going, he's an absolute cipher. If we had a nation of people like him, then we'd have nation of people living in openings in the forest, gathering fruit and hustling the occasional squirrel for their sustenance.

That said, I can't understand why so many unionists today seem bound and determined to [figuratively] "cut their own throats". Witness these "workers" at Electro-Motive up in London, Ontario which I mentioned in another post, for example. Or the unionists in the Red River Valley who COULD have employment at American Crystal Sugar...but seem dead-set on the idea of greasing the path to their own destruction via counter-productive political activity. Like "bbsam", they seem determined to "burn down the house".

But when your house is "burned down", where are you going to live? Do you think YOU can construct a new one from scratch as good or better ON YOUR OWN? If not, don't you think that those who have jobs to offer should be cherished to a certain degree exactly because they DO have jobs to offer? Why do people want to cut those who make their existence possible off at the knees? Just doesn't make sense.

Read the entire article, it was not just about jefferson.

So you are ok with being an apologist for corporatism?? You have no problem with how corporations continue to buy congress, outsource our jobs, lie to the public, pump the permament war machine, pollute, demand taxpayer bailouts, etc?? Sad. You have attached yourself to an entity with no soul with no allegiance to our government ans its people. A bunch of predators who see corruption as power and tax breaks and subsidies as profit centers and workers as only serfs. They have way too much control over our lives. They should be our servants not our masters. But I guess you must be fine living in the masters house. I prefer freedom and democracy!!

 

[PobreCarlos]

Read the entire article, it was not just about jefferson.

So you are ok with being an apologist for corporatism?? You have no problem with how corporations continue to buy congress, outsource our jobs, lie to the public, pump the permament war machine, pollute, demand taxpayer bailouts, etc?? Sad. You have attached yourself to an entity with no soul with allegiance to our government ans its people. A bunch of predators who see corruption as power and tax breaks and subsidies as profit centers and workers as only serfs. They have way too much control over our lives. They should be our servants not our masters. But I guess you must be fine living in the masters house. I prefer freedom and democracy!!

In terms of the fact that "corporatism" is the essense of the jobs that are provided to virtually every one on this board? Then "yes", I probably am. If I have to make a choice between groups, one side which includes individuals such as yourself and Ralph Nader - a individual who more often than not appears that HE would prefer to "burn the house down" as well - and another which favors "corporatism", then "yes" I would land on the "corporate" side as well....each and every time.

As for the question/claim that I "have no problem with [allegations that] "corporations continue to buy congress, outsource our jobs, lie to the public, pump the permament war machine, pollute, demand taxpayer bailouts, etc". well just how much credence should be given to the claims of of an individual who apparently is taking the side of those who want to "BURN DOWN THE HOUSE"? After all, these "worthies" have ALREADY shown that they're willing to actually take such a course; you don't break into governmental buildings and burn flags and such without an element of stridency to your movement. And, as such, I take ANYTHING they say with a HUGE "grain of salt". Why should someone of substance deem virtually ANYTHING someone like you has to say as more than mere hyperbole?

I will address a couple of the aspects of that hyperbole, thought. First, let's talk about your concept of their "outsourc[ing] OUR jobs". Just when did they become OUR jobs...as in YOURS??? Since when did individuals like YOU start providing those jobs? On what basis are they "ours" (in the first person plural) instead of belonging to THOSE WHO OFFER THEM????? See a problem there?

Yeah, guys like you prefer "freedom and democracy" alright...just so long as it's not extended to the other guy. You consider those who MAKE YOUR VERY EXISTENCE TENABLE as "predators". Meanwhile, you denounce their alleged "subsidies" (care to mention just WHICH acutal "subsidies") on the one hand, while gathering them in YOURSELF right and left on the other. Do guys like you pay subsidies? Hell no! Of COURSE not! That goes against the "gimme, gimme" concept! Again, 47% OF THE COUNTRY'S HOUSEHOLDS ARE PAYING NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL!!!! And who do you think is making up the difference FOR them? People like you? Or is it perhaps the "corporatists"...who are paying double; once on their "corporate income", then a second time when it's taxed as "personal". It's really "sad", isn't it, that they're allowed to be taxed TWICE while far too many of the parasites like you aren't even paying ONCE! God, what "predators" those nasty corporatists are relative to those who's generosity consists of demanding that OTHERS do the work for them!

Yeah, you should be their "masters" alright...you, who don't have a damn thing to offer society except demands of "gimme, gimme". "Corporatists" should, according to you, be the "servants" of a mob of parasites who can't seem to lead productive lives themselves, let alone direct that of others.

Tell ya' what...when you're prepared to show that you can BUILD a societal "house", then come back to me explaining how it's time to burn down the one that your betters have ALREADY built. Bring Nader with you. I'm sure he'll be one of the first to strike a match.

 

[804brown]

You seem to have an obsession with houses burning:Talking Heads "Burning Down the House" - YouTube

 

[804brown]

Wow, so you are so pissed because someone making $12k and has 2 kids "isnt paying taxes". How friend---ing selfish of them. How dare they get away with that !! But romney getting away with paying just 13% is so ok with your ilk!!

And yes they are OUR jobs. Jobs created by the demand of people like me. Without that demand, those corporate greedy bastards would not have a company. Without our hard labor, those same greedy bastards would not have a company.

Ok I will bring Ralph with me and you be sure you bring Gordon Gekko!!

 

[PobreCarlos]

804brown;

Yeah, I do, especially when I hear people claim that "Maybe it's time" to burn them down....and when I hear other people venturing-forth to SUPPORT such a position.

Gosh, isn't that WEIRD!!!! Someone like me who actually thinks that tearing society down is a "bad" thing? What cheek I must have!